State v. Hollenbeck
| Decision Date | 30 September 1894 |
| Citation | 67 Vt. 34,30 A. 696 |
| Parties | STATE v. HOLLENBECK. |
| Court | Vermont Supreme Court |
Exceptions from Chittenden county court; Taft, Judge.
Eddie J. Hollenbeck was convicted of rape, and excepts. Reversed.
The prosecutrix was 14 years of age, and a member of the family of George Hollenbeck, a brother of the respondent. The testimony showed that, soon after the alleged offense, she informed Mrs. Hollenbeck what had happened, and requested her to tell Mrs. Gilman, the mother of the prosecutrix. Thereupon the state introduced Mrs. Gilman as a witness, who was permitted to testify, against the objection and exception of the respondent, that Mrs. Hollenbeck did tell her, not in the presence of the prosecutrix, of the complaint which had been made to her.
J. B. Cushman, State's Atty.
J. A. Brown, for defendant.
The respondent is charged with having committed the crime of rape. The prosecutrix was a witness for the state, and, on cross-examination, was inquired of as to whether, at about the time the alleged offense was committed, she had intercourse with one Billet. The court excluded the question, and the respondent excepted. This inquiry was proper on cross-examination, and should have been allowed. The precise question presented by this exception was decided in favor of the respondent in State v. Johnson, 28 Vt. 512, and in State v. Reed, 39 Vt. 417; and an extended consideration of the authorities upon the subject is unnecessary.
The fact that the state, later in the trial, called the prosecutrix as a witness upon the same subject, and the respondent had an opportunity to cross-examine, and declined to do so, does not deprive him of the benefit of this exception. He had a right to examine her upon this subject at any time during her cross-examination. At the time he proposed to examine her upon the subject of her relations with Billet she had not been inquired of by the state in respect to the matter. Therefore, a cross-examination upon the subject at that time might have been of material advantage to him; for, if the prosecutrix was untruthful, she would naturally be better prepared to withstand a cross-examination after her attention had been called to the subject by inquiries made by the party calling her.
While the prosecutrix was being cross-examined by the respondent, he proposed to show by her that her relations with the respondent were friendly and cordial at the time of the alleged commission of the act complained of, and continued so thereafter. This was excluded, and the respondent excepted. While the respondent was putting in his evidence in defense, the court told him he could examine the prosecutrix upon...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Hashimoto
...cured by the fact that the defendant subsequently calls the witnesses as his own and examines them on his own behalf. In State v. Hollenbeck, 67 Vt. 34, 30 A. 696, 697, in a trial for rape, where a question was erroneously excluded on cross-examination of the complaining witness, it was hel......
-
State v. Patnaude
...they would if she had been a woman of unquestioned virtue. State v. Reed, 39 Vt. 417, 419 (1867), reaffirmed in State v. Hollenbeck, 67 Vt. 34, 35, 30 A. 696, 697 (1894). Before our sexual assault act, two trials were in progress at the same time. In nearly every rape case, the prosecutor p......
-
State v. Jones
... ... Abbot, 19 Wend. (N. Y.) 192; People v ... Betsinger, 11 N.Y.S. 916 [ 1 ] ; Brennan v. People, ... 7 Hun (N ... Y.) ... 171; State v. Johnson, 28 Vt. 512; State v ... Reed, 39 Vt. 417, 94 Am. Dec. 337; State v ... Hollenbeck, 67 Vt. 34, 30 A. 696; Benstine v. State, ... 2 Lea (Tenn.) 169, 31 Am. Rep. 593; Brown v ... Commonwealth, 102 Ky. 227, 43 S.W. [80 Wash. 602] 214; ... [142 P. 41.] Creighton v. State, 41 Tex. Cr. R. 101, 51 S.W ... The ... prosecuting witness had ... ...
-
J.J. Goodwin, Trustee of the Bankrupt Estate of the Cutler, Storer And Fay Co. v. Barre Savings Bank And Trust Co
...a right to have the direct and cross-examinations placed in direct contrast before the jury. Stiles v. Estabrook, supra; State v. Hollenbeck, 67 Vt. 34, 30 A. 696; People v. Becker, 210 N.Y. 274, 104 396. The error was prejudicial, because it related to a vital feature of the defence. It ha......